ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013
Follow-up care in cancer: adjusting for referral targets and extending choice.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and content validation of a questionnaire measuring patient empowerment in cancer follow-up.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- The patient perspective: investigating patient empowerment enablers and barriers within the oncological care process.Ecancermedicalscience · 2019Article
- Health expectations. Editorial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver recent years, several initiatives have impacted on the referral of patients to secondary care, most notably targets for urgent referral in suspected cancer and the patient choice agenda. At the same time, improved long-term survival in cancer has increased numbers attending follow-up, doubts about the effectiveness of specialist follow-up have emerged, and alternative models of follow-up have been tested.
aimThe aim of the study was to explore patient and carer perspectives on the flexibility and responsiveness of cancer services. This article focuses on findings relating to referral, subsequent outpatient appointments and cessation of outpatient follow-up.
methodsIssues were explored in a qualitative study using face-to-face interviews with a purposive sample of 54 people affected by cancer. Data were analysed concurrently with data collection, using qualitative analysis software.
findingsThe study gave rise to a number of salient themes. Links were identified between three of these: choice and responsiveness during referral; the flexibility and responsiveness of outpatient appointment systems; and negotiating cessation of follow-up. It appeared that policy on urgent referrals might be adversely affecting practice relating to appointment systems and the continuance of follow-up. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsHospital-based cancer follow-up is being given decreasing priority because of doubts about effectiveness and a target-driven focus on referral. This is impacting on patients, who may value outpatient follow-up as a 'safety net' but have difficulties in obtaining appointments, and may be discharged without negotiation or adequate support. For these reasons, new forms of flexible/responsive aftercare are urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.